See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14112407

Peer relations in adolescence: Effects of

parenting and adolescents' self-concept

Article in Journal of Adolescence · May 1997

DOI: 10.1006/jado.1996.0074 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

186 4,331

2 authors:

Maja Deković Wim H J Meeus

Utrecht University Utrecht University
428 PUBLICATIONS 6,735 CITATIONS 528 PUBLICATIONS 10,529 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Self-concept clarity in relation to life transitions and stressful events in adolescence and young
adulthood View project

Family break-up, system break-down: Dynamic post-divorce processes and child adjustment over time
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wim H J Meeus on 30 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Adolescence 1997, 20, 163–176

Peer relations in adolescence: effects of parenting and

adolescents’ self-concept
´
MAJA DEKOVIC AND WIM MEEUS

In this study we examined the link between the parent–adolescent relationship

and the adolescent’s relationship with peers. The proposed model assumes that the
quality of the parent–child relationship affects the adolescent’s self-concept, which
in turn affects the adolescent’s integration into the world of peers.
The sample consisted of 508 families with adolescents (12- to 18-years-old).
The data were obtained at the subjects’ homes, where a battery of questionnaires
was administered individually to mothers, fathers and adolescents. Several
constructs relating to the quality of the parent–child relationship were assessed:
parental acceptance, attachment, involvement, responsiveness, love withdrawal
and monitoring of the child. The measures of the adolescent’s self-concept
included Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale for Adolescents and Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem Scale. The indicators of the quality of peer relations were: degree of
peer activity, having a best friend, perceived acceptance by peers and attachment
to peers.
Assessment of the hypothesized model showed that the adolescent’s self-concept
serves a mediating role in the relationship between maternal child-rearing style
and involvement with peers. The mediating role of self-concept was greatest for
maternal acceptance. Paternal child-rearing style, however, appeared to have an
independent effect on the adolescent’s involvement with peers that is not
accounted for by the adolescent’s self-concept. The prediction of the quality of
adolescents’ peer relations yielded similar results for both mothers and fathers. The
results suggest that a positive self-concept and warm supportive parenting each
contribute unique variance to satisfactory peer relations.
 1997 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction
The important role played by parents in shaping children’s social skills´ and relationships
with peers prior to adolescence has been clearly documented (Dekovic, 1992; Parke and
Ladd, 1992). Studies of how parental influences on children’s extra-familial relationships
continue through adolescence are much less numerous. Moreover, studies of parenting and
peer relations during adolescence have typically focused on how parents and peers influence
social development in separate and unique ways (Meeus, 1989).
Studies which have examined the link between family and extra-family relations during
adolescence have shown that the strength of this relationship does not decline and that
parents retain a substantial influence on the development of adolescent social relationships
outside the family. Bell et al. (1988) showed that family relationship patterns are reflected
in the peer relationship patterns experienced by adolescent girls: there was a strong
´
Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to M. Dekovic, Department of Youth, Family, and Life
Courses, Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.

0140-1971/97/020163+14/$25.00/0/ad960074 1997 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

 ´
164 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

Parent-Adolescent Self-concept Peer relations

relations

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationship between parent–adolescent relations, self-concept and peer

relations.

similarity between the degree of connectedness which the adolescent girl experiences in her
family relationships and the degree of connectedness which she experiences in her
relationships with peers. Feldman and Wentzel (1990) found that during early adolescence
parental child-centeredness and social support from the family were positively related to the
adolescent being liked by peers. Even in late adolescence, close relationships with parents
are associated with perceived social competence and greater satisfaction with peer
relationships (Bell et al., 1985).
These studies emphasized the positive aspects of peer relations: closeness to peers,
satisfaction with peer relations and acceptance by peers, all of which seem to bear a direct
relationship with a positive quality of the parent–child relationship. Studies which
examined more negative aspects of peer relations, such as association with deviant peers
(Snyder et al., 1986) or extreme peer orientation (Fuligni and Eccles, 1993) showed that
inept discipline practice, parental strictness and a high level of control may lead adolescents
to invest more time and attention in their peer relationships. This extreme orientation
toward peers, heavy reliance on the peer group and high involvement with peers seem to
indicate an alienation from parents which is not compensated by a positive quality of peer
relations. Strongly peer-oriented adolescents have more negative views of themselves
(Conger et al., 1992), experience more emotional problems (Kandel ´ and Davies, 1982), and
do not appear to receive more support from their peers (Dekovic and Meeus, 1995).
These studies provide sufficient evidence of the importance of the parent–adolescent
relationship for the various aspects of the adolescent’s relationship with peers. Very few
studies, however, have tried to investigate the mechanisms which link parent and peer
systems during adolescence (Brown et al., 1993). In the present study we examined whether
the adolescent self-concept is a possible mediating link between the parent–adolescent
relationship and the adolescent’s relationship with peers. The conceptual model guiding
this research is shown in Figure 1. The model assumes that the quality of the parent–child
relationship affects the adolescent’s self-concept, which in turn affects the adolescent’s
integration into the world of peers.
Most theorists would agree that essential pre-requisites for positive self-evaluation are
parental acceptance and positive regard for the child. Bowlby’s (1980) attachment theory
postulated that children draw upon experiences with parents to form an internal mental
representation or a working model of self and others. This working model becomes
incorporated into the personality structure of the individual, governs the individual’s
behaviour in new settings and affects the quality of relationships with others. Secure
attachment fosters the construction of models in which others are viewed as available and
trusting and in which the self is conceptualized as worthy of care, love and attention.
Insecure attachment on the other hand fosters the development of working models of the
 Peer relations 165

self as an unworthy, unlovable person and of others as unavailable or hostile (Sroufe, 1988;
Holmes, 1993). Attachment theory assumes that attachments are formed in infancy, but
also points out that attachments are an integral part of human behaviour throughout the
lifespan of the individual (Bowlby, 1977). Several authors (Parkes and Stevenson-Hinde,
1982; Bretherton and Waters, 1985) have argued that attachment beyond childhood is
reflected in continuity in the organization of the individual’s cognitions, expectations or
internal working model.
Numerous empirical studies (see for review Maccoby and Martin, 1983) have
demonstrated the importance of attachment and warm and accepting parenting for
children’s psychological growth. A parent who is affectionate, positively evaluates his/her
child and provides emotional support conveys to the child a feeling of value that is the basis
of self-esteem. Parental acceptance and support also encourage the child to explore personal
limits and discover competencies, which is important for self-concept development. These
aspects of child-rearing have consistently been found to be correlates of children’s self-
esteem, even when the children have become young adults (Buri et al., 1987).
Feelings of self-worth are not only the result of interactions with others, but also provide
a filter through which an individual views and responds to the behaviour of others.
Adolescents with higher self-esteem are more likely to be involved in close relationships
(Fullerton and Ursano, 1994). The interpretation of this association has often been that
friendships contribute to self-esteem, but it is equally reasonable to assume that an
individual’s feelings of self-worth affect the capacity to establish close relationships with
others (Berndt, 1982; Bohrnstedt and Felson, 1983). This may be especially true during
adolescence. In the period of pre- and early adolescence peer group and friends become
increasingly important. Having a friend is a significant social achievement for adolescents
and an indicator of social competence. It is also in this period that friendships become
characterized by mutuality, intimate sharing, and self disclosure (Berndt, 1990). An
adolescent who develops positive self-evaluation may be more able than an adolescent with
feelings of low self-worth to form such friendships and to be open for others, and may be
more prepared to disclose thoughts and feelings. In other words, feelings of self-worth may
facilitate the development of satisfactory relationships with peers.
To summarize, the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship has been linked to both
adolescent self-concept and adolescent peer relations. Self-concept, especially the
evaluative component of self-concept, i.e. self-esteem, is also related to peer relations. In
the light of these findings, the main aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the
adolescent self-concept may, at least in part, explain the link between parent–adolescent
and adolescent–peer relations.
Several additional concerns guided this research. First, given the previous findings
highlighting the differences in mother–adolescent and father–adolescent relations (Youniss
and Smollar, 1985), this study includes both parents and the model was tested separately for
mothers and for fathers. This also provides the opportunity to examine possible differential
effects of the relationship with each parent on the adolescent self-concept and peer
relations. Second, separate informants were used to assess mother’s and father’s parenting,
and adolescent self-concept and peer relations. This decreases the possibility that the
relationships found in any analysis are due to the use of the same source (e.g. adolescent
report) to measure different variables. Third, for each assessed construct several indicators
were used. For example, the measurement of peer relationships included indicators of both
the quality and quantity of peer interactions. Similarly, the assessment of self-concept
 ´
166 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

included not only global self-esteem, but also domain-specific components of self-concept,
that is, the self-evaluation of competence in the cognitive, physical and social domains
(Harter, 1983). Finally, in order to examine which aspects of the parent–adolescent
relationship are especially relevant for both adolescent self-concept and peer relations,
several specific features of the child-rearing style of the adolescent’s parents are identified,
some of them concerning parental support, such as responsiveness, involvement,
attachment and acceptance, and others concerning parental attempts to discipline and
supervise the child (Gecas and Seff, 1990).

Method
Subjects
The sample consisted of 508 families with adolescents (254 females and 254 males). The
sample represented a wide range of socio-economic and educational backgrounds. All
families were Dutch, i.e. both parents were born in the Netherlands. Three age groups were
represented: early adolescence (between 12- and 13-years-old, 86 females and 84 males),
middle adolescence (between 14 and 15, 73 females and 76 males) and late adolescence
(between 16 and 18, 95 females and 94 males). Seven percent of the children were the only
child in the family, 35% were the oldest child, and 41% the youngest child.
The parent sample consisted of 969 parents (502 mothers and 467 fathers) ranging in age
from 30 to 65 years (mean age of mothers: 43 years; mean age of fathers: 45 years). Most of
the families (91%) were intact families, 7% of the parents were divorced or separated and
2% were widowed. No differences were found between intact and single parent families on
demographic variables: parental education, socio-economic status, or age and gender of the
target child. Also the family type did not significantly affect any of the variables assessed in
this study. Therefore the combined sample was used in all subsequent analyses.

Measures

Peer relations. Four measures of peer relations were used. The first instrument
assessed the Degree of Peer Activity. The adolescent was asked to indicate on a 6-point
scale how often (1=never to 6=every day) he/she sees friends outside school, has a date,
goes to a party and goes out with friends in the evenings. The internal consistency of this
scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha 0·66). The second measure, Best Friend, consisted
of one item asking whether or not the adolescent has a close, intimate friend. Third,
Perceived Social Acceptance, i.e. the degree to which the adolescent feels accepted by
his/her classmates, was measured by an 8-item scale (e.g. “I often feel lonely in this
class”—reverse coded) (Smits and Vorst, 1982). Adolescents indicated whether each
statement is true (1), untrue (3) or whether they feel unsure about it (2). Reliability
analyses indicated that the scale had a good internal consistency (alpha=0·82). Fourth, the
quality of the relationship with peers was assessed by a short version of the Inventory of
Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) (Armsden and Greenberg, 1987; Nada Raja et al.,
1992). For the purpose of this study only the items measuring Attachment to Peers were
used. The scale consists of 12 items (alpha=0·82) tapping the quality of communication,
the degree of trust and alienation in peer relationships (e.g. “I tell my friends about my
 Peer relations 167

problems and troubles”). A 4-point Likert scale was used with categories of (1) almost
never, (2) sometimes, (3) often, and (4) almost always.
In order to reduce the number of criterion variables, factor analysis was conducted on
these four measures. Principal components analysis, followed by an orthogonal rotation,
suggested two distinct factors, which explained 62·1% of the variance. The first factor, with
high factor loadings (in parenthesis) of the variables Best Friend (−0·72) and Degree of Peer
Activity (0·78), was labeled Involvement with Peers. The second factor appeared to tap the
positive quality of peer relations because of the high loading of the variables Perceived
Social Acceptance (0·68) and Attachment to Peers (0·82). This factor was labeled Quality
of Peer Relations. For each subject factor scores were computed using the short regression
method. These two factor scores were used in subsequent analyses as measures of peer
relations.

Self-concept. Self-concept was assessed by two instruments. The first instrument was
the adolescent version of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982,
1988), which measures adolescents’ perceptions of their own competence in the following
domains: (1) scholastic competence, (2) social competence, (3) athletic competence, (4)
physical appearance, (5) behavioural conduct, (6) close friendships, (7) dating and (8)
global self-worth. Each scale consists of five items and each item is a pair of statements (e.g.
“Some young people find it hard to make friends. For other young people it is pretty easy”).
This format is designed to reduce the effects of a pull for social desirability. Adolescents first
had to decide which of the items in the pair better described them, and then had to rate
whether that item was “sort of true” or “really true” of them. Each item was then scored on
a 4-point scale. Reliability analyses showed that two scales, behavioural conduct and dating,
had a low internal consistency, 0·49 and 0·56, respectively. These scales were dropped from
further analyses. The internal consistency of the other scales was satisfactory: scholastic
competence 0·71; social competence 0·70; athletic competence 0·83; physical appearance
0·77; close friendships 0·62 and global self-worth 0·71.
The second instrument, Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, assesses the value or sense
of worth that adolescents perceive about themselves. Adolescents rated themselves on 10
items (e.g. “In general I am happy with myself”), using four response categories ranging from
1=highly descriptive of me to 4=highly undescriptive of me. Responses were coded so that a
higher score indicated a higher level of self-esteem. The internal consistency was 0·85.
These seven scales were also subjected to factor analysis. This analysis resulted in two
factors (59% of explained variance). The variables which loaded highly on the first factor,
General Self-Worth were: school competence (factor loading 0·51), athletic competence
(0·55), physical appearance (0·81), global self-worth (0·77), and self-esteem (0·77). The
second factor had a high loading of the variables social competence (0·82) and friendship
(0·91), and was labeled Social Self-Worth. Each subject was then assigned the two factor
scores. Higher scores on both factors indicate a more positive self-concept.

Parent–adolescent relationship. Several constructs relating to the quality of

parent–adolescent relationships and the parental child-rearing style were assessed by
questionnaires administered to each parent individually. The first construct, Acceptance,
defined as parental satisfaction with the child’s physical, intellectual and emotional
characteristics, was measured by a 12-item scale (e.g. “It is not easy for me to accept my
child as he/she is”—reverse coded). The second style, Attachment, consists of nine items
 ´
168 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

and measures the degree of closeness, intimacy, understanding and trust that the parent
experiences in the relationship with the child (e.g. “I believe that I do not have a very close
relationship with my son/daughter”—reverse coded). Both scales are from a modified
version of the Parental Stress Index questionnaire (Abidin, 1983; Gerris et al., 1993), and
have a 6-point response format ranging from 1=completely disagree to 6=completely agree.
The internal consistency of the Acceptance scale was 0·81 for mothers and 0·84 for fathers.
Alphas for the Attachment scale were 0·73 and 0·76 for mothers and fathers, respectively.
Parental Involvement with the child was assessed by a 7-item scale (Vergeer, 1987) (e.g.
“What my child does, thinks or feels interests me more than all other things in life”).
Internal consistency was for mothers 0·74 and for fathers 0·70. The next scales are both
taken from the Child-Rearing Questionnaire (NOV) (Gerris et al., 1993). Parental
Responsiveness, defined as a tendency to react promptly and sensitively to the child’s
signals was measured with eight items (e.g. “I see immediately whether my child is sad or
upset”). The degree to which the parent reacts with Love withdrawal and disregard when
the child transgresses was assessed by five items (e.g. “When my child does something that I
do not approve of it, I look angry and ignore him/her”). Both scales have a 6-point response
format and a high internal consistency: responsiveness 0·87 and 0·85, and love withdrawal
0·85 and 0·86, for mothers and fathers, respectively.
The last construct assessed was parental Monitoring. The 6-item scale assesses the
parent’s supervision of the child and monitoring of the child’s daily activities. The parent
was asked to indicate on a 4-point scale (1=almost nothing to 4=almost everything) how
much he/she knows about the child’s whereabouts after school, in leisure time, when the
child goes out in the evenings and at weekends, etc. The alphas for this scale were 0·77 for
mothers and 0·78 for fathers.
Since we wanted to examine which specific aspects of parent–adolescent relations
(independent variables) contribute to the prediction of adolescent self-concept (mediator
variable) and peer relations (dependent variable), the parent–adolescent relations measures
were not subjected to factor analysis.

Procedure
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger national programme of research on
children/adolescents and their parents “Child rearing in The Netherlands in the 1990s”
comprising 1250 Dutch families with a child between 0- and 18-years-old. In this article
only data regarding families with adolescents (12- to 18-years-old) are reported (n=508).
The data collection took place at the subject’s homes, where a battery of questionnaires was
administered individually to adolescents, mothers and fathers.

Results
The first step in the data analysis was the computation of correlations between parenting,
self-concept and peer relations measures. The intercorrelations between these variables are
presented in Table 1. The adolescents’ self-concept measures were significantly related to
both involvement with peers and the quality of peer relations. Adolescents with a more
positive self-concept were found to have more satisfying relationships with peers. The
relationship between self-concept and involvement with peers is not so straightforward.
 Peer relations 169

Although adolescents who are more positive about their social competence also have more
contact with peers, their general self-worth was negatively related to involvement with
peers.
Examination of the correlations between parental and adolescent measures shows that
mothers’ and fathers’ child-rearing styles relate in a similar way to adolescent self-concept
and the relationship with peers. Interestingly, fathers’ scores produced more significant
correlations. Involvement with peers was, for both mothers and fathers, associated
negatively with attachment and monitoring. A low level of closeness and intimacy in the
relationship with parents and low supervision of the adolescent’s activities by parents seem
to lead the adolescent to spend more time in activities with peers. The quality of peer
relations shows a different pattern of findings. Adolescents who have a more satisfying
relationship with parents also have a more positive relationship with peers. Parents of these
adolescents also know more about their children’s whereabouts and tend to avoid using love
withdrawal to discipline their sons/daughters.
As expected, a positive self-concept appears to be related to parents’ acceptance of the
child and a warm, close parent–adolescent relationship.
In the next set of analyses, we computed multiple correlations to examine the
predictability of the adolescents’ peer relations from each set of predictors. First, we
examined the predictability of involvement with peers and the quality of peer relations
from two self-concept measures. The multiple correlations for involvement and quality were
0·40 and 0·40, respectively (both p<0·001). Thus adolescent self-concept accounted for a
significant proportion of variance in both peer relations measures.
Second, the predictability of peer relations from parenting was assessed separately for
mothers and fathers (Table 2). The quality of the relationship with parents (both mothers
and fathers) significantly predicted the degree of peer involvement and the quality of the
relationship with peers. Examination of beta coefficients revealed that different aspects of

Table 1 Relationship between peer relations, self-concept and parent–adolescent relations

Peer relations Self-concept
Involvement Quality General Social
Self-concept
General Self-Worth −0·11* 0·34*** 1·00
Social Self-Worth 0·40*** 0·22*** 0·00 1·00
Mother–Adolescent relations
Acceptance 0·01 0·30*** 0·23*** 0·13**
Attachment −0·10* 0·18*** 0·15*** −0·04
Involvement 0·02 0·03 −0·03 0·01
Responsiveness −0·03 0·04 0·02 0·01
Love withdrawal 0·03 −0·20*** −0·08 −0·07
Monitoring −0·16*** 0·11* 0·05 −0·03
Father–Adolescent relations
Acceptance −0·08 0·27*** 0·25*** 0·15**
Attachment −0·09* 0·22*** 0·20*** 0·13**
Involvement 0·03 0·15** 0·09* 0·06
Responsiveness −0·05 0·13** 0·14** 0·03
Love withdrawal 0·08 −0·16*** −0·07 −0·04
Monitoring −0·18*** 0·24*** 0·14** 0·05
*p<0·05; **p<0·01; ***p<0·001.
 ´
170 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

the parent–child relationship were associated with the two aspects of peer relations.
Whereas the strongest predictor of involvement with peers was a low level of parental
monitoring, the positive quality of peer relations was predicted best by parental acceptance
of the child.
Next, multiple correlations were computed between self-concept and parenting (Table
2). The quality of the mother–adolescent relationship predicted significantly both the
adolescents’ general and social self-concept. This effect was attributable to mothers’
acceptance. Fathers’ scores made a significant contribution to the prediction of the
adolescent’s general self-worth. Again, this was due to effects of parental acceptance.
Adolescent social self-worth was not significantly predicted by the quality of the
father–adolescent relationship.
The preceding results provide evidence of the links among parenting, self-concept and
peer relations. In the next set of analyses we tested the hypothesized model proposing that
the link between the parent–adolescent relationship and the adolescent relationship with
peers is mediated by the adolescent’s self-concept. To test this model we conducted a
stepwise regression analysis with the adolescents’ peer relations as a criterion, in which the
adolescents’ self-concept measures were entered first, followed by parental child-rearing
measures. In other words, the relationship between parent–adolescent and adolescent–peer
relations was assessed while controlling statistically for the variation in the adolescents self-
concept. The analyses were performed separately for mothers and for fathers. Table 3
summarizes the results of these analyses.
As could be expected, given the results described earlier, the adolescents’ involvement
with peers was significantly predicted by self-concept measures. The entry of maternal

Table 2 Summary of multiple regression analyses predicting peer relations and self-concept from
parent–adolescent relations
Parent–Adolescent Peer relations Self-concept
relations
Involvement Quality General Social
Mothers
Acceptance −0·12 0·32*** 0·25*** 0·25**
Attachment −0·16* −0·09 0·01 −0·12
Involvement 0·08 0·03 −0·05 −0·06
Responsiveness 0·06 −0·10 −0·04 0·03
Love withdrawal 0·00 −0·12* −0·03 −0·01
Monitoring −0·17** 0·06 0·00 −0·06
R Square 0·04 0·11 0·06 0·04
F-Value 2·91*** 8·08*** 3·92*** 2·57***

Fathers
Acceptance 0·01 0·20*** 0·29*** 0·14
Attachment −0·04 −0·03 −0·07 0·06
Involvement 0·10 0·10 0·01 0·08
Responsiveness −0·02 0·02 0·04 −0·11
Love withdrawal 0·05 −0·08 0·04 0·05
Monitoring −0·19*** 0·08 0·05 0·00
R Square 0·05 0·09 0·07 0·03
F-Value 3·12*** 6·62*** 4·32*** 0·99
*p<0·05; **p<0·01; **p<0·001.
 Peer relations 171

measures at step 2 did not provide significant incremental prediction. That is, the
relationship between maternal child-rearing style and adolescents’ involvement with peers,
which had previously been significant, ceased to exist when the self-concept measures were
entered first. It thus seems that the adolescent’s self-concept serves a mediating role in the
relationship between maternal child-rearing style and involvement with peers. Examination
of the changes in the magnitudes of the beta coefficients suggests that the mediating role of
self-concept was greatest for maternal acceptance.
The fathers’ model produced different results, however. After the effect of self-concept
had been removed, the entry of paternal child-rearing measures significantly increased the
accuracy with which adolescents’ involvement with peers could be predicted. It appears
that paternal child-rearing style has an independent effect on the adolescents’ involvement
with peers that is not accounted for by the adolescents’ self-concept.
The stepwise regression analyses regarding the prediction of the quality of adolescents’
peer relations yielded similar results for both mothers and fathers. In both cases, after the
variation due to the adolescents’ self-concept had been partialled out, the quality of peer
relations was incrementally predicted by the maternal and paternal child-rearing measures.
The changes in the magnitude of the betas suggested that some mediation did take place.
Again, the mediating effect was greatest for parental acceptance (a change for mothers from
0·32 to 0·14; for fathers from 0·20 to 0·07). Taken together, these results suggest that a
positive self-concept and warm supportive parenting each contribute unique variance to
satisfactory peer relations.
There is a possibility that the relationship between peer relations and self-concept is
spurious, owing to their common association with child-rearing. If this is true, then the
proposed model is not valid and self-concept does not function as a mediator: after
eliminating the effects of child-rearing, self-concept would have no effect on peer relations.

Table 3 Summary of multiple regression analyses predicting peer relations from self-concept and
parent–adolescent relations
Step/predictors Involvement Quality
Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers
1. Self-concept
General self-worth −0·10** −0·11* 0·35*** 0·34***
Social self-worth 0·41*** 0·42*** 0·22*** 0·23***
R Square 0·18 0·19 0·17 0·17
F-Value 36·35*** 38·42*** 34·08*** 34·92***
2. Parent–Adolescent relations
Acceptance −0·00 −0·11 0·14* 0·07
Attachment −0·10 −0·05 −0·04 −0·07
Involvement 0·11 0·09 0·04 0·09
Responsiveness 0·01 0·01 −0·05 0·07
Love withdrawal −0·00 0·02 −0·14* −0·15*
Monitoring −0·12* −0·18*** 0·04 0·07
R Square Change 0·03 0·06 0·04 0·05
F-Value of Increment 1·94 4·72*** 3·09** 3·81**
Total set R Square 0·21 0·25 0·21 0·23
F-value 10·69*** 13·79*** 11·15*** 12·04***
*p<0·05; **p<0·01; ***p<0·01.
 ´
172 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

In order to test this possibility we performed a series of multiple regression analyses in which
the reverse order of entry was used, that is, parental child-rearing measures were entered
first, followed by the self-concept measures. In each regression, however, adolescent’s self-
concept measures, when entered on the second step, still significantly increased the
accuracy of the prediction of peer relations (R Square Change for involvement with peers:
mothers, 0·17, and fathers, 0·19; for quality of peers relations: mothers, 0·12, and fathers,
0·13; all significant at p<0·001). In other words, the impact of self-concept on peer relations
is not an artifact of their common association with parental child-rearing.

Discussion

In this study we examined the relationships between parent–adolescent relations,

adolescent self-concept and adolescent–peer relations. The first conclusion to emerge from
the analyses concerns peer relations. The pattern of findings seems to suggest that a
distinction must be made between two aspects of peer relations: involvement with peers
(defined as the degree of activities with peers and friendships which are more superficial in
nature) and the quality of the relationship with peers. Whereas a positive quality of peer
relations is associated with higher self-evaluation in both the general and social domains,
involvement with peers is negatively related to general self-worth: adolescents who spend
more time in activities with peers tend to have a more negative general self-motivation.
Similar findings have been reported in other studies. A high involvement with peers has
been found to be related to a negative self-concept and a lower degree of well-being
(Kandel and Davies, 1982; Conger et al., 1992).
These two aspects of peer relations also show differential associations with measures of
parent–adolescent relations. First, the quality of the parent–adolescent relations appears to
bear a stronger link with the quality of peer relations than with involvement with peers.
This is consistent with the findings of younger children. Park and Waters (1989) found no
differences between securely and insecurely attached children in the degree of interaction
with peers: securely attached children were not more interactive with peers. The differences
between these two groups of children were found in the content of interactions, with
securely attached children showing more positive peer interactions than insecurely attached
children.
Second, different aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship predicted, respectively,
involvement with peers and the quality of peer relations. A low level of closeness and
intimacy in the relationship with parents and low supervision of adolescents’ activities by
parents appears to encourage adolescents to spend more time in activities with peers. The
quality of peer relations shows a different pattern of findings. Adolescents who have a more
positive relationship with parents, in terms of parental acceptance, attachment and
involvement, also have a more positive relationship with peers. Parents of these adolescents
also know more about their children’s whereabouts and tend to avoid using love withdrawal
to discipline their sons/daughters.
It therefore seems that in this study the involvement with peers tapped an orientation
toward peers and away from parents. ´ We know from previous studies (Kandel and Davies,
1982; Conger et al., 1992; Dekovic and Meeus, 1995) that the most beneficial pattern in
adolescence is one in which there is a balance between evolving an active pattern of
interactions with peers and remaining close to parents. A strong, over-emphasized
 Peer relations 173

involvement with the peer group without a positive relationship with parents appears to be
one of the best predictors of problem behaviour (Kandel and Davies, 1982). The findings
from the present study seem to point in the same direction: high involvement with peers
during adolescence could be an indicator of lack of attention and concern at home, rather
than an indicator of the adolescent’s social competence. This is consistent with the view of
Bronfenbrenner (1974) who argues that adolescents turn to peers for companionship and
emotional support not because they are inevitably attracted to peers but because they are
pushed in that direction by inattentive and unconcerned parents.
In this study we hypothesized that the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship
would predict the adolescent’s self-concept, which would in turn predict the adolescent’s
relations with peers. The assessments of the hypothesized model produced different results
depending on the aspect of peer relations used as the criterion. The analyses of the
involvement with peers showed that the adolescent’s self-concept serves a mediating role in
the relationship between maternal child-rearing style and involvement with peers. The
mediating role of self-concept was greatest for the maternal acceptance. Paternal child-
rearing style, however, appeared to have an independent effect on the adolescent’s
involvement with peers that is not accounted for by the adolescent’s self-concept.
The prediction of the quality of adolescents’ peer relations yielded similar results for both
mothers and fathers. Adolescent self-concept appears to be only part of the explanation for
the association between the quality of parent–adolescent relations and the quality of the
adolescent’s peer relations. In other words, the parent–adolescent relationship seems to be
linked both indirectly (through the adolescent’s self-concept) and directly to the
adolescent’s peer relations.
With regard to the indirect link, it appears that parental acceptance of the child
especially promotes positive attitudes toward the self; that is, adolescents whose parents
report a higher level of satisfaction with their child also report more positive self-
evaluation. In a relationship of this kind the adolescent is constantly provided with positive
feedback about him/herself, which naturally fosters feelings of self-worth. Inattentive,
uncaring and unaccepting parenting implies negative evaluation of the child which
children are likely to internalize (Amato and Ochiltree, 1986). In terms of attachment
theory, a warm and accepting relationship with parents provides a base of security from
which the adolescent may operate as an effective and competent person (Rice, 1990). A
positive view of the self in turn appears to contribute to greater satisfaction with peer
relations. This is consistent with the results of the Bohrnstedt and Felson’ study (1983) on
the relationship between self-esteem and perception of popularity. They showed that
children who liked themselves assumed that other children also like them. Models in which
self-esteem affected perception of popularity fitted the data better than those in which the
reverse or reciprocal effects were estimated. Adolescents with higher self-regard probably
approach others differently than adolescents with lower self-regard. Buhrmester (1990)
identified the type of interpersonal competencies that are important in adolescent
friendship relations: initiating conversations and relationships outside the classroom
context, appropriately disclosing personal information, honestly expressing opinions and
tactfully providing emotional support to friends. In his study these competencies were also
positively related to the adolescents’ self-esteem and friendship intimacy. In other words,
adolescents low in self-esteem probably lack these specific interpersonal competencies and
are more likely to have difficulties establishing and maintaining intimate friendships.
With regard to the direct link, it is probable that parents affect adolescents’ peer relations
 ´
174 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

in a number of other ways beside the aspects of self-concept assessed here. Within the
parent–adolescent relationship the parent also models an interactional style which the
adolescent may imitate in other contexts. Furthermore, according to attachment theory, the
quality of the parent–adolescent relationship affects not only feelings about the self but also
feelings and expectations regarding others (Holmes, 1993). Future research on the
mechanisms through which parents affect their adolescent’s peer relations should examine
more closely these behavioural and social-cognitive variables as possible mediating links.
The results from the separate mother and father models show similar influences from
each parent. Remarkably, the associations between the parent–adolescent relationship and
both aspects of adolescent development (self-concept and peer relations) were generally
stronger for the father than for the mother. This finding seems to suggest that the father’s
behaviour toward the adolescent is of a greater importance than the mother’s with regard to
self-concept development and the development of peer relations. This contradicts the usual
assumption: mothers spend more time in day-to-day interactions with their adolescents
than do fathers, and therefore their behaviour should bear a stronger relationship with the
developmental outcome (Litovsky and Dusek, 1985). It is possible that the role of the
father in child-rearing becomes more pronounced during adolescence. In traditional
families fathers are assigned instrumental functions designed to socialize children into
modern society (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). Given the fact that the adolescents are at the
threshold of their entrance to society, it is possible that the father in his role of “the link to
the outside world” increases in importance as a socializing agent for this transitional period.
Moreover, Montemayor (1982) showed that between childhood and adolescence mothers
become less involved with child-care activities, whereas fathers’ involvement with their
children, especially sons, increases. On the other hand, mothers are more likely than fathers
to be unconditionally accepting and supportive (McCormick and Kennedy, 1994). When
fathers show such behaviours it can be particularly salient and therefore more consequential
for the adolescent’s development. However, this suggestion must be regarded as tentative
and in need of replication in other samples.
It should be noted that the cross-sectional nature of this study means that the data can be
used to test the hypothesized model, but they cannot directly support any conclusion about
causality. As suggested earlier, it is equally possible the higher self-esteem is due to the
effects of the positive quality of peer relations. It seems likely that this relationship is
dialectical, in that the adolescent’s self-evaluation determines how successful the adolescent
will be in forming friendships, and in turn, experiences in friendships influence individual
self-evaluation. Furthermore, the relationships outside the family are not static, but
constantly changing and being modified as the young person develops during adolescence.
Regardless of direction of the effects, the important conclusion from this study is that
parental influence on adolescent peer relations remains extensive. It also appears that the
parental behaviour which is related to positive peer relations does not change with age. The
same aspects of parental behaviour that ´were identified as correlates of positive peer
relations during middle childhood (Dekovic, 1992; Parke and Ladd, 1992), also emerged as
significant predictors during adolescence. In the light of evidence indicating that
adolescent friendships contribute to social adjustment not only during adolescence but also
later in life (Brendt, 1982; Fullerton and Ursano, 1994), the origins and determinants of
successful or unsuccessful peer relations during adolescence certainly warrant further study.
More specifically, attention should be given to cultural and ethnic differences between
families (Smith and Krohn, 1995), as well as to the difference in family constitution (intact,
 Peer relations 175

stepfamilies, single parent families) (Fauber et al., 1990), to examine how these factors
affect the relationships assessed in the present study.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Culture (PCOJ).

References
Abidin, R. R. (1983). Parenting Stress Index: Manual. Charlottesville: Pediatric Psychology Press.
Amato, P. R. and Ochiltree, G. (1986). Family resources and the development of child competence.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 47–56.
Armsden, G. C. and Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–453.
Bell, N. J., Avery, A. W., Jenkins, D., Feld, J. and Schoenrock, C. J. (1985). Family relationships and
social competence during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 109–119.
Bell, L. G., Cornwell, C. S. and Bell, D. C. (1988). Peer relationships of adolescent daughters: A
reflection of family relationship patterns. Family Relations, 37, 171–174.
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendships in early adolescence. Child Development,
53, 1447–1460.
Berndt, T. J. (1990). Distinctive features and effects of early adolescent friendships. In Advances in
adolescent development. Vol. 2: From childhood to adolescence, Montemayor, R., Adams, G. R. and
Gullotta, T. P. (Eds). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 85–106.
Bohrnstedt, G. W. and Felson, R. B. (1983). Explaining the relations among children’s actual and
perceived performances and self-esteem: A comparison of several causal models. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 43–56.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: Aetiology and psychopathology in
the light of attachment theory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201–210.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Volume 3: Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. and Waters, E. (Eds) (1985). Growing points in attachment theory and research.
Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 50 (1–2, Serial No. 209).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). The origins of alienation. Scientific American, 231, 53–61.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D. and Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer
group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467–482.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during
preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101–1111.
Buri, J. R., Kirchner, P. A. and Walsh, J. M. (1987). Familial correlates of self-esteem in young
American adults. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 583–588.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simon, R. L. and Witbeck, L. B. (1992). A
family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child
Development,
´ 63, 526–541.
Dekovic, M. (1992). The role of parents in the development of child’s peer acceptance. Assen, The
Netherlands:
´ Van Gorcum.
Dekovic, M. and Meeus, W. (1995). Emotional problems in adolescence. In Childhood and youth in
Germany and The Netherlands: Transitions and coping strategies of adolescents, du Bois-Reymond,
M., Diekstra, R., Hurrelmann, K. and Peters, E. (Eds). Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 225–241.
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M. and Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the
impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of
disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112–1123.
Feldman, S. S. and Wentzel, K. R. (1990). The relationship between parenting styles, son’s self-
restraint, and peer relations in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 439–454.
 ´
176 M. Dekovic and W. Meeus

Fuligni, A. J. and Eccles, J. S. (1993). Perceived parent–child relationships and early adolescents’
orientation toward peers. Developmental Psychology, 29, 622–632.
Fullerton, C. S. and Ursano, R. J. (1994). Preadolescent peer friendships: A critical contribution to
adult social relatedness? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 43–63.
Gecas, V. and Seff, M. A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980s. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 52, 941–958.
Gerris, J. R. M., Boxtel, D. A. A. M., Vermulst, A. A., Janssens, J. M. A. M., Zutphen, R. A. H. and
Felling, A. J. A. (1993). Parenting in Dutch families. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: University of
Nijmegen, Institute of Family Studies.
Harter, S. (1992). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Developmental, 53, 87–97.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development, Mussen, P. H. (Ed.). New York: Wiley,
pp. 275–385.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver: University of Denver.
Holmes, J. (1993). Attachment theory: A biological basis for psychotherapy? British Journal of
Psychiatry, 163, 430–438.
Kandel, D. B. and Davies, M. (1982). Epidemiology of depressive moods in adolescence. An empirical
study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1205–1212.
Litovsky, V. G. and Dusek, J. B. (1985). Perceptions of child rearing and self-concept development
during the early adolescent years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 373–388.
Maccoby, E. E. and Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent–child
interaction. In Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social
development, Mussen, P. H. (Ed.). New York: Wiley, pp. 1–101.
McCormick, C. B. and Kennedy, J. H. (1994). Parent–child attachment working models and self-
esteem in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 1–18.
Meeus, W. (1989). Parental and peer support in adolescence. In The social worlds of adolescents,
Hurrelmann, K. and Engel, U. (Eds). New York: de Gruyter, pp. 167–183.
Montemayor, R. (1982). The relationship between parent–adolescent conflict and the amount of
time adolescents spend alone and with parents and peers. Child Development, 53, 1512–1519.
Naja Raja, S., McGee, R. and Stanton, W. R. (1992). Perceived attachments to parents and peers and
psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471–485.
Park, K. A. and Waters, E. (1989). Security of attachment and preschool friendships. Child
Development, 60, 1076–1081.
Parke, R. D. and Ladd, G. W. (Eds) (1992). Family–peer relationships: Modes of linkage. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parkes, C. M. and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds) (1982). The place of attachment in human behavior. New
York: Basic Books.
Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511–538.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, C. and Krohn, M. D. (1995). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role
of ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 69–93.
Smits, J. A. E. and Vorst, H. C. M. (1982). Schoolvragenlijst voor basisonderwijs en voortgezet onderwijs
(SVL): Handleiding voor gebruikers. [School questionnaire for elementary and high school (SVL):
Users manual]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Berkhout.
Snyder, J., Dishion, T. J. and Patterson, G. R. (1986). Determinants and consequences of associating
with deviant peers during preadolescence and adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6,
29–43.
Sroufe, L. A. (1988). The role of infant–caregiver attachment in development. In Clinical implications
of attachment, Belsky, J. & Nezworski, T. (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
pp. 18–38.
Vergeer, M. M. (1987). Effecten van de geboorte van een tweede kind. [Effects of the birth of a second
child]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Youniss, J. and Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

View publication stats